New Canon Camera Bodies Appear for Certification - Updated

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,318
505
fullstop said:
at the end of the day the question is: if a certain functionality is seen as useful by some/many users, should they be denied that functionality even when it does not harm those not interested in it?

If those unhappy users are an insignificant minority then is it unreasonable that they should accept that and put up with it?
I am not defending Canon, just challenging your (as usual) over simplistic view that is coloured by 'I want it so it must be important enough for Canon to do it'
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,325
3,643
Irving, Texas
fullstop said:
CanonFanBoy said:
Battery indicators: When the got dang thing flashes, change out the got dang battery.

Same goes for most of the dang "4/6 stage battery indicators": when the dang last bar starts flashing on my Canon EOS M for example, there really is hardly any juice left. Often i find it "too late" then. So I am forced to change battery at the latest when the dang gauge drops to one bar.

Is it really hard to understand that "when the dang last bar starts flashing" it is time to change the battery? Don't see what your complaint is. You want it to, instead, read that you have 1% left? Wow. ::) Really scraping the bottom of your whine barrel, aren't you? Do you also complain when the kids don't fold the loose end of the toilet paper into a neat 45 degree angle?

Rumor has it that Canon is adding functionality to the battery feature. If wifi is turned on the camera will send a text to your smartphone, in addition to an Amber Alert type of alarm (The kind that scares the crap out of you when it goes off like a nuclear attack is imminent.), to let fullstop know the battery needs changing out. ::) Oh yeah, the last indicator bar will flash too.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
Well, Canon could do an OPEN survey on its web site/s asking their customers [registered to make sure only customers participate] what features they want or don't want in specific camera/s [could be the cameras they own and/or for new successor/"upgrade" models], possibly even asking for a ranked order.

Then everybody interested could immediately see, how much demand there is for what functionality. And whether one's desires really are "totally one-off" or not.

Until that happens I go from my experience that I am NEVER alone in ANYTHING I wish for. Whether it is a majority wish or not, is open. But again, adding features that don't harm anyone and don't really cause additional cost or other disadvantages - like a [switchable] battery meter with percent and bar indicator - should really not be a problem.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
CanonFanBoy said:
Is it really hard to understand that "when the dang last bar starts flashing" it is time to change the battery? Don't see what your complaint is. You want it to, instead, read that you have 1% left? Wow. ::)

no. You don't seem to understand.

Me - and apparently many other smart camera users here - NEVER allow the battery indicator "in the field" to drop to only "1 dang flashing blob".

I would be more interested to see, what the charge in % is, when the first blob drops - is it still at 79% or at only 55%? In the first case I know I am still good for a while. In second case I know I need to watch things closely, because - in my experience - it is not unlikely that charge drops rather fast from 55% towards zero.

What is so difficult to understand? And if stills-only shooters have to put up with all the video stuff in each and every single camera, why should those of us who want it not get a battery meter reading like on this Sony? Where's your problem, really?

dupamacspl9nkmmqr.jpg


btw: those "bar indicators" can really be misleading. here 3 out of 4 bars are visible so one might conclude remaining charge should be around 75% when it really only is 65% [provided this number is accurate]. No big deal, but what if indicator drops the next bar to 2 out of 4 and in reality there is only 29% charge left? Just as an example. So not only accuracy would be good to have, but also a better degree of precision than only a 4- or 6 stage indicator.
 

crashpc

EOS RP
Jan 19, 2014
367
7
We already had this kind of discussion and attitude in sensor DR discussions.
Turned out to be important one, even though people were called nasty, minor forum whiners.
Can be the case with the battery, or not, we don´t know. Only difference is, that there is possibly smaller number of those whiners. But also the cost of implementation is proportinally smaller.

Hell I can live without a camera, that´s how important it is in my life. But if people are offering some deals, they need to try to satisfy customers. That is obvious chain of how things work.

Calling someone anything for wanting usable feature is no reasonable point in the forum too.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,650
2,183
crashpc said:
Calling someone anything for wanting usable feature is no reasonable point in the forum too.

Agreed. Wanting a feature is reasonable. So is asking for that feature. Expounding on the benefits of that feature is also quite reasonable.

What's not reasonable is claiming that millions of others also want that feature, with no evidence to support that claim. What's not reasonable is claiming Canon could easily implement that feature but chooses not to for nefarious reasons, with no evidence to support that claim. What's not reasonable is claiming that the lack of that feature makes a camera sh!t. What's not reasonable is calling someone anything for not seeing a personal need for that feature, or for providing technical information as to why implementing that feature may be technically challenging or may not be cost-effective.

Hopefully you can understand and appreciate the difference.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
neuroanatomist said:
Agreed. Wanting a feature is reasonable. So is asking for that feature. Expounding on the benefits of that feature is also quite reasonable.

What's not reasonable is claiming that millions of others also want that feature, with no evidence to support that claim.

When e.g. overwhelming majority of users here agree, that e.g. "more DR is better" even if they put differning value as to how important it is to them - then it is not unreasonable to conclude that majority of camera owners and potential buyer would also be in favor. Since millions of cameras are sold each year, we are talking of millions. Even if the us forum dwellers here were totally unrepresentative for all camera buyers, and overall only 20% of those were of the same opinion, it would still be millions.

Don't think it would be unreasonable to go with the same hypothesis for a lot of other "wishes" expressed in our forum here. :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,650
2,183
Are an overwhelming majority of users here asking for a % charge battery readout, or 17% more battery power in select camera models, or an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 lens?
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,846
2,988
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
crashpc said:
We already had this kind of discussion and attitude in sensor DR discussions.
Turned out to be important one, even though people were called nasty, minor forum whiners...

That's a pretty gross mischaracterization of the Dynamic Range discussion. No one on this forum ever said dynamic range was unimportant. What happened was that a handful of people were obsessed with dynamic range (taking pictures with lens caps on, for example) and many were mostly interested in bashing all things Canon, using dynamic range as an excuse.

Those who were irrational and had a skewed perspective were criticized and yes, sometimes the discussions got heated. But, the reality was that most of the people on the forum were trying to keep things in perspective and critical of those who made it out to be more important than it really was.

So I suppose this battery gauge discussion is somewhat similar, as most of the people on this forum see it as a trivial complaint.
 

crashpc

EOS RP
Jan 19, 2014
367
7
neuroanatomist said:
crashpc said:
Calling someone anything for wanting usable feature is no reasonable point in the forum too.

Agreed. Wanting a feature is reasonable. So is asking for that feature. Expounding on the benefits of that feature is also quite reasonable.

What's not reasonable is claiming that millions of others also want that feature, with no evidence to support that claim. What's not reasonable is claiming Canon could easily implement that feature but chooses not to for nefarious reasons, with no evidence to support that claim. What's not reasonable is claiming that the lack of that feature makes a camera sh!t. What's not reasonable is calling someone anything for not seeing a personal need for that feature, or for providing technical information as to why implementing that feature may be technically challenging or may not be cost-effective.

Hopefully you can understand and appreciate the difference.

I didn´t do that claim. If I even touched it, I would say "most user would most probably enjoy the upgade", or something along that line.

Evidence, or lack of it, doesn´t set reality by absolute means. If I don´t have an evidence that someone killed someone else, it doesn´t absolutely mean he didn´t do it. As we have hints that this might be the case "nerfing" while the capabilities are obviously present in the hardware, than we have valid and reasonable point here. I also didn´t call anybody anything for not having the need. The response to this behavior was a reaction to the attitude and to the capabilities discussion, not preference discussion.

I see and understand those differences, yet we do not agree on certain aspects of it. That is okay. I didn´t start with who doesn´t have an idea though.
 

crashpc

EOS RP
Jan 19, 2014
367
7
unfocused said:
crashpc said:
We already had this kind of discussion and attitude in sensor DR discussions.
Turned out to be important one, even though people were called nasty, minor forum whiners...

That's a pretty gross mischaracterization of the Dynamic Range discussion. No one on this forum ever said dynamic range was unimportant. What happened was that a handful of people were obsessed with dynamic range (taking pictures with lens caps on, for example) and many were mostly interested in bashing all things Canon, using dynamic range as an excuse.

Those who were irrational and had a skewed perspective were criticized and yes, sometimes the discussions got heated. But, the reality was that most of the people on the forum were trying to keep things in perspective and critical of those who made it out to be more important than it really was.

So I suppose this battery gauge discussion is somewhat similar, as most of the people on this forum see it as a trivial complaint.

That´s not how it went. Skewing informations in works again. I was part of many discussions at that time, and anybody who wanted more DR and expressed that openly, was some way or another confronted or attacked in a way he either should not want it, becasue he is not able to handle his camera to deliver desired results, or have been shown door to go buy SONY. Me included, and many others. Or because it is not doable for the price. Ridiculous.
This is exactly the same situation in the attitude and users behavior.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
neuroanatomist said:
Are an overwhelming majority of users here asking for a % charge battery readout, or 17% more battery power in select camera models, or an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 lens?

Over 18% more shot reach on every battery charge with a better 2018 battery pack instead of a weaker 2012 one? With no or an absolutely negligible penalty in price or size/weight? Well, I would certainly hope that even in this forum ;-) a strong majority would be for it. If you want to get a clearer indication, simply launch a voting thread. :)

Same for percent battery gauge - did anyone really say they definitely "would not want it added", if they had a choice? Again, no extra cost, no other penalty, ON/OFF user-switchable in menu.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,650
2,183
crashpc said:
I also didn´t call anybody anything for not having the need. The response to this behavior was a reaction to the attitude and to the capabilities discussion, not preference discussion.

I see and understand those differences, yet we do not agree on certain aspects of it. That is okay. I didn´t start with who doesn´t have an idea though.

Ahhh, I understand. Perhaps you are referring to responses like this:

crashpc said:
Got good chuckle about negative signal values readings.
Now it turns out who is the engineer and electro guy, and who just assertive nut with no usable arguments.

...It is very unequal fight between devs/techs and politics and trolls.

Remind me, who didn’t have an idea of what they were talking about there, and who ended up without a usable argument in that ‘very unequal fight’ you mentioned? Do you feel embarrassed that an 'assertive nut with no usable arguments' turns out to have more relevant technical knowledge than you, a self-proclaimed 'engineer and electro guy'?
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,318
505
crashpc said:
That´s not how it went. Skewing informations in works again. I was part of many discussions at that time, and anybody who wanted more DR and expressed that openly, was some way or another confronted or attacked in a way he either should not want it, becasue he is not able to handle his camera to deliver desired results, or have been shown door to go buy SONY. Me included, and many others. Or because it is not doable for the price. Ridiculous.
This is exactly the same situation in the attitude and users behavior.

I was involved in those discussions as well and the vocal 'we want more DR' were not only (and understandably) wanting a superior sensor but extended that argument to say quite clearly that Canon had to have an improved DR sensor to beat Sony or they would lose market share and lose their #1 spot. Critics of that view pointed out that Canon had had (supposedly) inferior sensors for 10 years and that had not happened and that fact alone called into doubt the importance of DR as a marketing feature.

Everyone agreed more DR was good, the dispute was its relative importance in the design of a camera.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,325
3,643
Irving, Texas
fullstop said:
CanonFanBoy said:
Is it really hard to understand that "when the dang last bar starts flashing" it is time to change the battery? Don't see what your complaint is. You want it to, instead, read that you have 1% left? Wow. ::)


dupamacspl9nkmmqr.jpg


btw: those "bar indicators" can really be misleading. here 3 out of 4 bars are visible so one might conclude remaining charge should be around 75% when it really only is 65% [provided this number is accurate]. No big deal, but what if indicator drops the next bar to 2 out of 4 and in reality there is only 29% charge left? Just as an example. So not only accuracy would be good to have, but also a better degree of precision than only a 4- or 6 stage indicator.

Ahhh... but here's your problem. You assume that Sony's 65% indicator is correct and accurate. You have absolutely no way to prove that. If it is accurate, then why does Sony keep using the bar indicator at all? Hmmmm? Sony doubles down and can't provide accuracy in either? Which is correct? How do you know it really is 65% and not 75%? Hmmmmm? You have no earthly idea.

As usual, Avtvm, you use this forum to proclaim that Sony got it right when you really don't know it. Believing it is accurate is far different than knowing it. Survey? Something tells me Canon knows what the market wants and provides it better than anyone else.

Keep saving your nickels. One of these days you'll get the camera you really want. Sony.

BTW: There's a guy here that writes code. His name is Harry. Y'all should get together. Just let him know it'll only take a few lines. Or are lines the problem?
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,325
3,643
Irving, Texas
neuroanatomist said:
crashpc said:
Calling someone anything for wanting usable feature is no reasonable point in the forum too.

Agreed. Wanting a feature is reasonable. So is asking for that feature. Expounding on the benefits of that feature is also quite reasonable.

What's not reasonable is claiming that millions of others also want that feature, with no evidence to support that claim. What's not reasonable is claiming Canon could easily implement that feature but chooses not to for nefarious reasons, with no evidence to support that claim. What's not reasonable is claiming that the lack of that feature makes a camera sh!t. What's not reasonable is calling someone anything for not seeing a personal need for that feature, or for providing technical information as to why implementing that feature may be technically challenging or may not be cost-effective.

Hopefully you can understand and appreciate the difference.

Harry could write the code in just a few minutes. Costs nothing. ;)
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
CanonFanBoy said:
Which is correct? How do you know it really is 65% and not 75%?

I’m not generally a fan of redundant displays, for this very reason.

I used to dive closed circuit rebreathers. My unit had 3 oxygen sensors (most do; redundancy is life critical), and a display for each. Typical methodology when they disagree is to take the two which are in closest agreement and make a decision.

It’s a much lower pressure (pun intended) choice with a camera battery. For my use case, it’s in fact trivial. If the thing shows 2 of 6 bars, or 30%, or whatever (I’m speaking arbitrarily here), I’ll find a convienient time to swap. There are other use cases where more information may be desired, e.g. shooting extended cinematic scenes. I presume the they use external power, but I’m not a video guy.
 

crashpc

EOS RP
Jan 19, 2014
367
7
neuroanatomist said:
crashpc said:
I also didn´t call anybody anything for not having the need. The response to this behavior was a reaction to the attitude and to the capabilities discussion, not preference discussion.

I see and understand those differences, yet we do not agree on certain aspects of it. That is okay. I didn´t start with who doesn´t have an idea though.

Ahhh, I understand. Perhaps you are referring to responses like this:

crashpc said:
Got good chuckle about negative signal values readings.
Now it turns out who is the engineer and electro guy, and who just assertive nut with no usable arguments.

...It is very unequal fight between devs/techs and politics and trolls.

Remind me, who didn’t have an idea of what they were talking about there, and who ended up without a usable argument in that ‘very unequal fight’ you mentioned? Do you feel embarrassed that an 'assertive nut with no usable arguments' turns out to have more relevant technical knowledge than you, a self-proclaimed 'engineer and electro guy'?

Who?
The guy trying to impose that there is no hardware in the camera able to measure and/or display better battery statsbetter way. It has been technically described in this thread, how it is possible with current hardware, and even more.
I haven´t seen anybody on that "not possible" side expressing himself with more knowledge at all.
What you write here is outright false. I didn´t end up without usable argument. I ended with negation and refusal to continue with nonrelated personal arguments, because of attempts for personal attacks, which I partially returned (my bad, but whatever).
Again. Even if I remained silent, that doesn´t make anybody being right instantly.
Wannabe forum leaders absolutely hate when someone comes in, and says just NO.

Yet you continue with pulling out personal stuff to feed your agenda. Weak.
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
crashpc said:
Who?
The guy trying to impose that there is no hardware in the camera able to measure and/or display better battery statsbetter way.

As far as I recall, nobody said that. What was said is (paraphrased): getting accurate enough charge remaining information to make meaningful a % display requires compatible batteries.

Not that the batteries used are not properly equipped.
Not that the camera is unable to communicate with a properly equipped battery.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,650
2,183
crashpc said:
What you write here is outright false. I didn´t end up without usable argument. I ended with negation and refusal to continue with nonrelated personal arguments, because of attempts for personal attacks, which I partially returned (my bad, but whatever).
Again. Even if I remained silent, that doesn´t make anybody being right instantly.
Wannabe forum leaders absolutely hate when someone comes in, and says just NO.

Yet you continue with pulling out personal stuff to feed your agenda. Weak.

Not sure if you’re confused, unable/unwilling to read what was posted, or merely being intentionally obtuse. The analogy was made between a battery gauge (bar-based graphical display vs. a numerical percentage readout) and the signal strength readout on mobile phones (bar/dot-based graphical display vs. a numerical value readout). The comment was made (by 3kramd5) that phones most likely don’t display signal strength because people would be confused by the negative values, to which you responded:

crashpc said:
Got good chuckle about negative signal values readings.
Now it turns out who is the engineer and electro guy, and who just assertive nut with no usable arguments.

As was later pointed out (and illustrated, and linked), negative values are the norm for measurements of radio signal strength.

In retrospect, perhaps you were referring to the response to the statement about negative signal values, and not to the concept of negative signal values. In that case, my apologies (and in the future, it may help to quote the post you’re replying to, which can avoid all sorts of confusion). But...I rather doubt that’s the case, since that means you’d be saying the argument for a more precise/numerical battery display —an argument you clearly support— was put forth by the ‘assertive nut with no usable arguments’.

So, you have a choice: confirm that you are supporting an argument made by an ‘assertive nut’ (in which case, you have my apology for the confusion, but it leaves you looking quite foolish), admit that your mocking of negative signal strength and the technical acumen of the person who brought that up was inappropriate and based on your lack of knowledge...or just continue to ignore/avoid the whole issue, and deflect the issue of your personally attacking someone else by accusing others of the same behavior. Talk about weak....
 
<-- start Taboola -->